(12-17-2012 10:14 PM)BlazerGreen Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:57 PM)Sycamore Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:13 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 09:01 PM)BlazerGreen Wrote:  

(12-17-2012 08:08 PM)vabearcat Wrote:  If one of the first moves is to add ECU as a basketball member to go along with Tulane, how is this a good plan for the long haul? Two basketball members that draw poorly, have no basketball fan base and suck NCAA tournament revenue from UCONN, Cincy, Memphis and Temple. Horrible idea. Would rather add VCU and George Mason as basketball members. ECU and Tulane have never been competitive in basketball and they won't be in whatever new conference configuration Aresco dreams up.

Some of these so-called "football schools" have been good for maybe five years or so. What happens when they revert to the mean and you are stuck with sorry football AND basketball partners? Every coach in UAB's history has taken the team to an at-large NCAA berth. Three NIT bids, four NCAA appearances, three tourney wins, and a Sweet Sixteen in the last ten years. What other C-USA school not named Memphis can match that?

Memphis and Cinci would be okay playing all these basketball dogs but UAB is Untouchable? BS

I dont see UAB getting in. Of course, I didnt see Tulane either.

Love these Houston fans bashing other schools. They have been good at football for what five years? They think they are Alabama or Notre Dame. Please enough already, Phi Slamma Jamma was what 25 years ago.

EXACTLY. Houston, SMU, and UCF were embarrassments in football less than a decade ago. Tulane still is in both major sports. ECU football (and USM) is like UAB basketball, a few down years but for the most part consistently good. It's sickening seeing Memphis and Cinci fans accepting these crappy basketball programs so they can share a conference with at best mediocre football.